To permit people to swear freely at police undermines the rule of law and
civilised society.

What on earth was he thinking – this Mr Justice Bean who has decided that mouthing a stream of obscenities at a police officer is no longer grounds for arrest? Apparently his priorities had nothing to do with the matters that you and I might think were relevant – the question of respect for those who represent the authority of the law, or the standards of public behaviour which might be thought appropriate when confronted by the front line of the criminal justice system.

No, what determined the judge’s decision was the probable psychological impact on said police officer by such a verbal assault. Was it likely, he asked, in agreement with a line taken by the defence counsel for Denzel Cassius Harvey, that a case-hardened cop who must be accustomed to hearing such words on a daily basis on the streets (and in his canteen) would feel “alarm or distress” at having them flung at him in the course of an encounter with the public? No, Mr Justice Bean thought not: ergo the uttering of such words should not constitute an offence – or presumably even count as aggravating circumstances in the course of resisting arrest.

It may seem to you that Mr Justice Bean missed the point of why insulting behaviour toward the police has traditionally been regarded as a criminal act. By referring only to the possible damage done to the individual psyche of the officer, he was ignoring the moral and social significance of such insolent defiance. A police officer approaching an individual on official business is not initiating a personal relationship or engaging in a casual exchange in which the usual rules of social intercourse (or lack of them) can be assumed to apply.

When an officer of the constabulary initiates an encounter with a civilian, this is not simply one member of the population addressing another: he (or she) represents the force of law, the politically agreed civil order of the community, the collective authority which has, as they say, been vested in him. In that moment, for the purposes of that exchange, he (or she) is the embodiment of the rule of law. And it is that – rather than the particular man or woman, however delicate or not his psychological nature may be – which is being disrespected and devalued when insults and profanities are showered upon him. Whether his feelings are hurt is rather beside the point.

In fact, Mr Justice Bean’s judgment at the Court of Appeal is not as idiosyncratic as it might appear. The Home Office is now consulting – God help us – on whether the word “insulting” should be removed from the description of a public order offence, thereby leaving only “threatening” and “abusive” words or behaviour as grounds for the charge. I can’t say that I am absolutely clear about this distinction between “insulting” and “abusive”: are the shouted, or chanted, words “f--- off” abusive or a mere insult? Certainly under some circumstances, they can be regarded as a threat. What sort of judgments are going to have to be made on the hoof about what kind of use is being made of such words when police officers are trying to decide whether to make an arrest? And if it is possible to discount the expletives as just “insulting”, what scope will this give to ingenious defence lawyers for arguing that their clients were not abusing or threatening the officer, but simply being rude to him?

The Metropolitan Police, who can usually be trusted to be ahead of the game on these things, already carry cards behind their warrant badges instructing officers to do nothing if they are publicly abused. Even using Mr Justice Bean’s criteria of psychological consequences, this is grotesque. What is the cumulative effect on police morale likely to be if they are forbidden from doing anything in response to open abuse? Quite apart from the matter of the awesome responsibility that serving police officers have and the symbolic nature of their status as representatives of legal (and moral) authority, this seems to be a demand for super-human forbearance.

Would we expect any other category of public servant, or even private service employee, to tolerate abuse and insult in such a routine way – without legal recourse or professional protection? (There are signs all over the London Underground warning that abusive behaviour towards staff will not be tolerated. Presumably the police can arrest people who insult Tube staff but not people who insult officers.) Why should the police – of all people – have to accept what most of us would regard as intolerable treatment in the workplace or the street?

And, as a society, if we force them to accept or ignore verbal defiance and vilification, how long can we expect any standards of public behaviour to be maintained? If the police are not worthy of civility in the streets, and teachers cannot command respect in the classroom, and conscientious parents are not supported by the community, we are on the way to creating a country that is not worth living in.